[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2682-S2688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 27, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 27) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.

  Pending:

       Hatch amendment No. 136, to add a provision to require 
     disclosure to shareholders and members regarding use of funds 
     for political activities.


                           Amendment No. 136

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the Hatch amendment No. 136 on 
which there shall be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual 
form.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hope we will not take the whole 30 
minutes. I understand some of our colleagues need to make some special 
appointments. I will try to be brief.
  I hope all of my colleagues will support this modest, straightforward 
amendment. We are here this week and next, debating so-called campaign 
finance reform. I do not understand how anyone can purport to favor any 
reform of our current system without being willing to offer the most 
basic right of fairness to the hard-working men and women of this 
country.
  Let's be clear about what we are talking about. We are talking about 
letting workers who pay dues and fees to labor organizations be 
informed about what portions of the money they pay to unions are being 
spent on political activities. In my view, that is basic fairness.
  Is there some big secret here? Is there some reason workers should 
not be told how their money is being spent?
  The hypocrisy of the opposition is quite extraordinary. The 
underlying bill severely limits the ability of political parties to 
engage in the types of activities that this amendment simply asks 
unions to inform their members about. How can someone on the one hand 
argue for a restriction on these activities by parties and then secure 
a free pass and not even disclose the same information by others? This 
is simply remarkable.
  Then we hear the argument that this simple disclosure requirement is 
too burdensome. Give me a break. During these weeks in March and April 
when hard-working Americans are hovering over their tax forms, how can 
anyone call this straight-forward disclosure requirement on the unions 
too onerous? What is going on?
  Labor organizations collect dues and fees from American workers. Can 
anyone tell me they are not already keeping track of this money? If 
this disclosure amendment is too onerous, that suggests to me there 
might be an even bigger issue of accountability on how and where this 
money is being spent.

  I trust my colleagues will remember these arguments about ``onerous 
burdens'' when we are trying to do regulatory reform.
  The issue in this simple amendment is, do America's hard-working men 
and women have the right to know whether and how the dues and fees they 
pay are being used for political activities, or don't they? It is that 
simple. This ought to be the most basic of worker rights and 
protections.
  I hope my colleagues cast their votes in favor of the right of 
American workers to know how their money is being spent.
  Finally, let me emphasize, this amendment does not require the 
consent of employees. It simply requires disclosure. That is all, pure 
and simple, disclosure to the hard-working teachers, janitors, 
electricians, carpenters, and others on what the union leadership is 
actually spending these workers' hard earned money. It doesn't seem to 
me to be much of a burden or requirement. It seems to me if we are 
interested in having true campaign finance reform, this is one of the 
basic reforms.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
proceed for about 3 minutes. If the Chair will advise me when 3 minutes 
expires.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I inquire how much time remains on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eleven and a half minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate appropriately rejected 
the original amendment requiring corporations and labor organizations 
to get prior consent from shareholders and their members in order to 
use their general treasury funds for political activities. That 
proposal was appropriately rejected rather overwhelmingly--69-31--in 
this body for reasons explained in a bipartisan fashion.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, and Senator Kennedy pointed 
out this was a cumbersome, almost unworkable proposal that would have 
literally placed businesses and unions in a very precarious position. 
We made the suggestion if the amendment was going to be seriously 
considered by this body, of which corporations and business would have 
vehemently opposed, it would have required them to engage and perform 
certain functions and duties that never before had been required of 
them.
  There is no parity for a democratic organization such as a labor 
union, where Federal laws require the opening of books, the revealing 
of financial data information, the free election and secret balloting 
of officers, and a corporation where none of those union requirements 
pertain to a corporation management structure.
  The same could be said in many ways about this amendment. While this 
amendment is simpler than the original amendment, the failure or the 
problems with this one are not much different. This is a tremendously 
cumbersome mandate that will make it very difficult for some of these 
businesses and corporations to comply. There are different levels of 
activities as well.
  According to the Federal Election Commission, in the area of 
contributions since 1992, as a general matter, corporations have 
outspent labor unions in Federal elections by almost 16-1. So there has 
been a huge disparity in the amount of money contributed to candidates.

  On the other hand, we have labor unions and labor organizations, and

[[Page S2683]]

their members engage in grassroots political activities, and 
corporations historically do not.
  This amendment is not a balanced in its approach to corporations and 
labor organizations. All of a sudden, this amendment attempts to 
penalize organizations that are trying to get people to participate in 
the political life of the country. It says to them, we are going to 
start demanding this kind of minutia and disclosure of information. As 
a matter of fact, there is no parity in asking corporations to do the 
same kind of disclosure when they don't engage in the activities that 
require the disclosure at issue. This amendment is truly not a balanced 
request or approach.
  Second, there are many other types of organizations that engage in 
political activities. While the Federal campaign law governs these 
organizations to a certain extent, this amendment completely excludes 
them. Membership Organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, 
the National Right to Life organizations, Sierra Clubs, and other 
groups are also subject to certain provisions of the FECA. This 
amendment does not address those organizations nor require them to 
disclose any detailed information regarding disbursements, 
contributions or expenditures with respect to their political 
activities.
  This amendment is impermissible ``selective application.'' It would 
only apply to one group of people, those involved in organized labor in 
the country.
  I understand my friend from Utah doesn't like organized labor. He 
doesn't like labor unions or labor organizations. He disagrees. These 
are people who take positions on the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
prescription drug benefits, and minimum wage, and a whole host of 
issues involving child care. I have a long list of items that working 
families, through their leadership, support. My good friend from Utah 
has usually disagreed with them on these matters. However, you don't go 
out and discriminate against one organization that is engaged in 
encouraging people to participate in the political life of the country 
by attaching a set of obligations and burdens on them that has the 
effect of discouraging political participation. We ought to be 
encouraging more participation.
  Finally, this amendment should be primarily opposed because it serves 
as a ``poison pill'' for the entire McCain-Feingold campaign finance 
reform legislation.
  For those reasons and others my colleagues will identify, we strongly 
oppose this amendment. This destroys the McCain-Feingold bill.
  I see my colleague from Wisconsin. I yield to him 3 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Hatch amendment 
and I urge all supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill to do the same. 
Once again, the effort of the Senator from Utah to treat unions and 
corporations equally sounds good but just doesn't work.
  There is no doubt that increased disclosure of election spending is a 
laudable goal. The Buckley decision explicitly upheld the disclosure 
provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act. Disclosure is aimed at 
increasing the information available to the voter. That is a good 
thing. No one questions the benefits of disclosure.
  But disclosure requirements have to be clear and well drafted. They 
have to actually work. They can't be too burdensome or they will chill 
constitutionally protected speech. And they can't be one-sided, aimed 
at one player in the election system and not at others.
  I am sorry to say that the provision offered by Senator Hatch fails 
all of these tests. First of all, his provision only applies to unions 
and those corporations that have shareholders. It doesn't cover 
businesses that don't have shareholders. It doesn't cover membership 
organizations such as the NRA, the Sierra Club, National Right to Life, 
or NARAL. Why should unions have to report to their members how much 
they are spending on get-out-the-vote drives, while all of these 
advocacy groups do not?
  The disclosure requirements are also incredibly burdensome and 
confusing. A union is required to send a report to all of its members, 
and nonmember employees every year on the spending not only of the 
union itself but all international, national, State, and local 
affiliates. And this is not a one-way chain either. Nationals have to 
report everything that locals do, and locals have to report everything 
that nationals do. A corporation has to report on the activities of all 
of its subsidiaries.

  Now remember, this amendment is not a requirement that these entities 
file a report once a year to the FEC. No, the reports have to be sent 
to every union member or corporate shareholder. A corporate PAC has to 
send a report every year to all of the shareholders of the corporation 
that is connected to the PAC. The content of the report is mostly going 
to be what the PAC has always reported to the FEC. What is the point of 
that?
  Now as to what has to be reported, the amendment is vague, almost 
unintelligible. Direct activities such as contributions to candidates 
and political parties have to be reported. I understand what 
contributions are, but what else does the term ``direct activities'' 
contemplate? The amendment is silent on that. In the definition of 
``political activities,'' which is what the general disclosure 
requirement covers, the amendment includes the following language--
``disbursements for television or radio broadcast time, print 
advertising, or polling for political activities.'' That is a circular 
definition. What broadcast expenditures have to be reported?
  Certainly not commercials for products, but the amendment gives us no 
real guidance. Public communications that refer to and expressly 
advocate for or against candidates are covered, but corporations and 
unions are prohibited from making those kinds of communications, and 
PACs already disclose their spending to the FEC.
  Finally, Mr. President, no matter how hard the Senator from Utah has 
tried to make this amendment seem evenhanded, there can be no doubt 
that the real purpose of this amendment is to try to get information 
from unions about their political spending. There is nothing inherently 
wrong with that, but any such disclosure requirements just have to be 
evenhanded. These are not, so I must oppose the amendment and ask my 
colleagues who support reform to join me in voting to table it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, every public company with shareholders is 
mandated to send financial disclosures to every shareholder--every 
public company. This is not a burden, it is done so they know how their 
money is spent.
  Labor union financial disclosures--you would think they were already 
giving disclosures to their members, but they are not at all. The labor 
union financial disclosures only go to the Department of Labor and not 
to a single union member. And for union men to get those disclosures, 
they have to show cause. That is how bad it is, and that is how one 
sided it is.
  I have heard these arguments that the Hatch amendment does not go far 
enough.
  Some are trying to avoid disclosure of corporate and union political 
expenditures to shareholders and union members on the grounds that the 
Hatch amendment doesn't make ideological groups, such as NRA, Sierra 
Club, and other nonprofit advocacy groups disclose their donors or 
expenditures.
  In response to that, I first note that it is a clever ruse to try and 
change the argument from disclosing expenditures to disclosing donors.
  As a constitutional matter, disclosure of expenditures is 
fundamentally different than disclosure of donors, supporters, or 
members. Disclosure of expenditures implicates no one's freedom of 
association. Senator Hatch understands that and this is why he limited 
his amendment to disclosure of expenditures only.
  Moreover, the Hatch amendment limits disclosure of expenditures to 
only corporations and unions, and makes sure that such disclosure only 
goes to union members and shareholders, not the general public.
  He does not apply disclosure of political expenditures to ideological 
groups such as the Sierra Club or the NRA because people who join or 
contribute to those groups know what those groups advocate. This is not 
always so with corporations and unions.
  Moreover, Federal law mandates certain democratic procedures for the 
governance of public companies under the

[[Page S2684]]

Securities and Exchange Act and the labor laws. Federal law does not 
mandate the internal governance of ideological groups. Under securities 
law and labor law Congress has set up a regime that imposed fiduciary 
duties on union and corporate leaders to members and shareholders and 
the Hatch amendment helps ensure those duties are fulfilled by shedding 
light on an area of corporate and union activity that supporters of 
McCain-Feingold are intent on keeping in the dark.
  Thus, my amendment is merely seeking to improve the flow of 
information in federally regulated entities that Congress has already 
decided should function as democratic institutions. And we all know 
that transparency is good for any democracy. But supporters of McCain-
Feingold are strangely opposed to more transparency and improved 
democracy in labor unions--that I think flies in the face of the rights 
of workers.
  The argument that the requirements of my disclosure amendment are too 
vague--this is my favorite argument. Supporters of McCain-Feingold say 
that the descriptions in the Hatch amendment of activity that must be 
disclosed are too vague and thus unfair.
  The Hatch amendment requires corporations and unions to disclose 
expenditures for ``political activity'' which is defined as:
  Voter registration;
  Voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity;
  A public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate 
for Federal office that expressly advocates support for or opposition 
to a candidate for Federal office; and
  Disbursements for TV, radio, print ads, or polling for any of the 
above.
  Now that doesn't seem that unclear to me, but it is too vague for 
supporters of McCain-Feingold. I find that fascinating.
  It is fascinating because when I read McCain-Feingold, which they 
think is perfectly fine, I see that it requires State and local party 
committees to not only report, but to pay for entirely with hard money, 
the following in even numbered years: ``generic campaign activity'' 
which is defined as ``an activity that promotes a political party and 
does not promote a candidate or non-federal candidate.
  Although it is far from clear to me, it must be perfectly clear to 
supporters of McCain-Feingold what constitutes ``an activity that 
promotes a political party'' since they are not complaining about 
vagueness in the underlying bill.
  Under S. 27, State parties must report and use hard money for

       A public communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for federal office . . . that promotes or supports 
     a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a 
     candidate for that office.

  Again, I find it interesting that no one is complaining about how 
vague this provision is. It does not say how to figure out when an ad 
``promotes or supports'' or attacks or opposes'' a candidate. McCain-
Feingold doesn't even say who is supposed to figure that out. But this 
is just fine. Only the Hatch amendment is too vague.
  I think it is pretty clear what is going on here.
  Let's be clear about what my amendment does. It requires unions and 
corporation to disclose their political expenditures. It does not 
require the disclosure of any contributors or the name of a single 
union member or shareholder. By focusing solely on disclosure of 
expenditures, the Hatch amendment avoids the constitutional infirmities 
of Snowe-Jeffords and other legislation that requires disclosure of 
donors to advocacy groups. Merely disclosing an organization's 
political expenditures implicates no one's free association rights.
  Moreover, this amendment is narrowly tailored insofar as it requires 
disclosure of union political expenditures only to union members and 
fee payers and disclosure of corporate political expenditures only to 
corporate shareholders. So it is not even disclosure of expenditures to 
the general public.
  It simply ensures that shareholders and union members will have 
clear, understandable information about how their agents--union 
officials and corporate executives--are using the money they entrust to 
them.
  Under existing law, neither shareholders nor union members get such 
information. Why should they not have it, it is their money. Why can't 
they see how it is being spent.
  Let's examine the arguments being used by proponents of McCain-
Feingold against this amendment:
  First, it is not fair because only unions engage in the types of 
political activity covered: Many have said only unions and no 
corporations do GOTV activity, voter identification, voter 
registration, leafletting, phone bank, volunteer recruitment and 
training, and myriad of other party building activities that would have 
to be disclosed under this legislation. Thus, they say the amendment is 
not balanced.
  They are right that no corporation does these basic party building 
activities the way unions do them for Democrats.
  Corporations give PAC contributions, which are already subject to 
limits and fully disclosed under existing law. They also give soft 
money contributions to political parties that are fully disclosed under 
existing law and will be eliminated under McCain-Feingold. Corporations 
also run some issues ads around election time, that will be banned for 
60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary, as will 
union issue ads.
  So McCain-Feingold already pretty well takes care of what 
corporations do, but does not touch the key things that unions do for 
Democrats--the groundgame. On our side, no corporations do or ever will 
do the kind of GOTV, and other groundgame activities unions do for 
Democrats.
  But all Democrats support banning party soft money, which is the only 
resource Republicans have to counter the massive groundgame unions do 
for Democrats. Without soft money, the Democrats ground game will go on 
thanks to their unions allies, but the Republican counter to the unions 
groundgame is eviscerated.
  This amendment wouldn't stop or otherwise hinder the unions ground 
game, it would just bring it out into the light of day and disclose to 
union members who pay for it. But no, we can't do that, it's not fair 
to attach that to McCain-Feingold. That would not be fair and balanced. 
But disarming the GOP in the face of the union groundgame is fair to 
supporters of McCain-Feingold?
  Second, disclosure under this amendment would discourage 
participation through GOTV activity and voter registration and other 
activities these entities do. This argument only makes sense if we 
assume that when union members or corporate shareholders learn about 
the political activities unions and corporations engage in that they 
will be outraged and rise up using the mechanisms of corporate and 
union democracy to oust the union and corporate officials using their 
money for GOTV and other political activities.
  To this I can only say that if union members and corporate 
shareholders would react in this way, so what. They have a right to 
pass judgment on how their money is spent and if they disagree to 
ensure that it is used for purposes with which they agree. Why keep 
them in the dark about how much of their money is used for various 
kinds of political activity? If unions are the happy, democratic 
institutions Democrats claim, what do union leaders have to fear from 
sunlight?
  The only other argument for saying that disclosure of expenditures 
would diminish such activity is that it is overly burdensome.
  This argument has little merit. We just passed a law last year that 
requires even the puniest section 527 organization to disclose any 
``expenditure'' for any purpose in excess of $200. No one claimed it 
was too great a burden for them. These groups are managing and they do 
not have nearly the resources of the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, NEA, and other 
unions.
  Unions and corporation would just do what section 527 groups already 
do, and what political parties already do--hire an extra accountant and 
maybe a lawyer. That is not too much when you are the Teamsters and you 
take in over $300,000,000 a year.
  If opponents of this amendment were truly concerned about voter 
turnout, voter education, and voter participation, they would rail 
against the fact that McCain-Feingold requires the national as well as 
State and local political parties to use 100 percent hard

[[Page S2685]]

money, thereby eliminating most of the resources available to our 
parties for their GOTV, voter identification, voter registration, and 
other activities that increase participation and turnout.
  How is mere disclosure of union and corporate political activity more 
damaging to voter participation and education than elimination of over 
one-third of the resources our parties have to do this?
  Maybe gutting the parties isn't so bad because Democrats know that 
unions will carry the water for them on all of these groundgame 
activities while McCain-Feingold will ensure that the Republican Party 
cannot match the unions' effort.
  This is a one-sided bill that basically is not fair, and it is 
certainly not fair to union men and women. These workers deserve to 
know for just what their union dues are being spent. All we are asking 
for is disclosure, something in this computer age they can do with ease 
if they want to, something in this computer age they ought to do 
because it is essential, something in this computer age they must do 
because it is not fair not to. To try to cloud the issue by saying we 
should disclose the donors--that is not the issue. The issue is 
expenditures, expenditures, expenditures; and the issue, the real 
issue, if we really want to do something about campaign finance reform, 
is disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. That is all I am asking for.
  I reserve the remainder of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to yield to my colleague from 
Michigan. We on this side, the opponents, have been talking about labor 
unions. I want to make a point as I read this amendment. People buy and 
sell stock with some regularity. You can buy one share of stock, as I 
read this amendment, for one day and technically be defined as a 
shareholder of a corporation, even if you held the stock for only 15 
minutes. As this amendment is crafted, if there was then an internal 
communication by that corporation during that year of some political 
message, despite the fact that I may have held one stock for 15 minutes 
as a shareholder, that corporation is then required to send me all this 
disclosure information about that corporation's political activity.
  That is incredible to me. It doesn't distinguish how long you are a 
shareholder, so a shareholder for 15 minutes, who bought and held the 
stock for 15 minutes and then sold the stock again, would be required 
to get this information.
  We talk about the negative effect on organized labor. If you are a 
corporate shareholder and this amendment is adopted, you ought to 
shudder, in terms of the amount of information you will be getting.
  But let me yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is indeed onerous, 
cumbersome, and confusing. It not only chills first amendment 
association rights, it makes a mockery of those rights.
  I want to use a few of the words from the amendment, words that were 
left out by my good friend from Utah who, by the way, is celebrating 
his birthday today. I think we all want to congratulate him. I heard it 
on the radio today. Senator Hatch, I won't disclose the age--except to 
say it is a few months older than I--and I would like to wish happy 
birthday to our good friend from Utah.
  Let me take one example of the confusing words in this amendment 
which make it impossible, it seems to me, to be implemented: An 
expenditure which directly or indirectly--directly or indirectly--is 
made for an internal communication that relates to a political cause.
  I cannot imagine how any corporation or union could conceivably keep 
track of the direct or indirect expenditure that relates to an internal 
communication that relates to a political cause. ``Political cause'' is 
not defined, by the way. We have the words ``political activity'' 
defined in ways which, for the most part, only apply to unions and not 
to corporations. But that is a different problem. That is the problem 
of the paper parity--an amendment which appears to apply to 
corporations. If it did, it would be totally impossible for a 
corporation to comply with, as our good friend from Connecticut just 
said. But it is really aimed at labor unions because the activities 
which are identified are mainly the political activities in which 
unions engage.

  But the point is, these words are so extraordinarily vague. Imagine a 
union at every level trying to keep track of the indirect costs of an 
internal communication that relates to a political cause--whatever all 
of that means. This is a burdensome and onerous requirement. I think it 
is confusing, and it is cumbersome.
  Again, it is devastating to a right which all of us--Democrats and 
Republicans--ought to protect, which is the right of free association.
  I close by reminding our colleagues that this applies to members of 
labor unions who join that union, and not to nonmembers. This is 
intended to control the rights of voluntary association and its 
members. This is an intrusion, and a heavy interference in the rights 
of association. It places impossible burdens on an association to keep 
track of every single expenditure and every internal communication that 
could indirectly--I am using the words of the amendment--relate to a 
political cause.
  None of those words are defined.
  It is an onerous interference with the first amendment right of 
association.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Five minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Utah for 
offering this amendment. This does not have anything to do with how the 
unions raise their money. We already voted down yesterday the 
opportunity for union members to get a refund of union dues spent on 
causes with which they don't agree.
  So the AFL-CIO is essentially batting 1,000 so far.
  All this is about is simple disclosure.
  I remember last year when the section 527 bill came up. We did not 
hear anybody saying that it was a poison pill or that it was too 
burdensome. Why is all of a sudden a simple disclosure burdensome, as 
Senator Hatch pointed out. For a union member to find out how the money 
of his or her union is spent, he has to go over to the Department of 
Labor and establish just cause to be permitted to see how the funds 
have been spent.
  Every corporation in America does more disclosure than that. They 
send out annual reports to shareholders. No union does that.
  This is about as mild as it gets. All we are asking is for a simple 
disclosure to the public and to union members of how this money is 
spent.
  It doesn't restrict their spending of the money. It doesn't in any 
way hamper their ability to raise the money. Simple disclosure is all 
the Hatch amendment is about, disclosure and sunlight.
  What is there to hide? After all, this money comes from union 
members. Why are they not entitled, without having to buy a plane 
ticket and fly to the Department of Labor and convince some bureaucrat 
they have just cause to be permitted to see the records of how their 
union spent their money last year?

  It seems to me that this is very basic and not very onerous.
  It is interesting to listen to the opponents of this amendment try to 
think of arguments against it. About all they can come up with is it is 
burdensome.
  It is also burdensome to have your dues taken and spent in ways that 
you are not entitled to find out unless you buy a plane ticket to come 
to the Department of Labor and sit down with some bureaucrat and 
establish just cause.
  I do not know what the AFL-CIO is afraid of on this.
  I assume the votes will not be there to approve this amendment 
because it is pretty clear that anything that has any impact whatsoever 
on organized labor--anything, any inconvenience, and now even simple 
disclosure and sunlight--is perceived as a poison pill. That is where 
we are in this debate.
  I hope the Hatch amendment will be agreed to.
  The reason paycheck protection didn't get more votes last night, of 
course, is because it also applied to corporations. And there are a 
number

[[Page S2686]]

of Members on our side who didn't want to apply that to corporations.
  This is plain. It is simple. It is understandable, and it is 
essential to a functioning democracy.
  It seems to me that this is an opportunity for the Senate, if it is 
serious about disclosure, to give union members and the public an 
opportunity to understand how union dues are spent.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will yield back time, but I wish to read 
what the amendment says: Itemize all spending, internal communications 
to members or shareholders, external communications to anyone else by 
any means of transmission for any purpose on any topic that relates to 
any Member of Congress or person who is a Federal candidate, any 
political party or any political cause total.
  This is so broad that I can't imagine anyone, whether from a business 
perspective or labor perspective, would vote for this amendment. It is 
not appropriate to include such an over broad and vague amendment on a 
constitutionally sensitive campaign finance reform bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Just add the words ``directly or indirectly.''
  Mr. DODD. That is right.
  We urge rejection of this amendment. I am happy to yield back all of 
our time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is an opportunity for members of 
unions to find out how their dues are being spent without buying a 
plane ticket, going to the Department of Labor, and trying to find out 
through that difficult process.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to say that I 
think we all agree we are making very good progress. I also want to 
point out that we don't have any idea yet how many amendments remain. 
It is about time now in this process that we get an idea of how many 
remaining amendments there are.
  The majority leader is trying to figure out whether we should stay in 
tomorrow, and even Saturday, in order to complete our work. I am not 
sure I can agree to us not remaining in session, unless we have some 
idea as to the number of remaining amendments and how we continue to 
address those.
  Look, everybody knows the Senator from Alaska is going on a trip to 
Alaska next Thursday night and is intent on doing that. I don't want to 
interfere with that. I don't want us to go out early tomorrow, or at 
any time, until we have some idea as to how we can bring this to an 
end, hopefully, by next Thursday or Friday.
  I hope Members will let Senators McConnell and Dodd know of their 
amendments. That doesn't mean there won't be one or two additional 
amendments or additional second degrees. But we ought to know about how 
many amendments remain so we can have an idea as to how much time we 
need to use over the weekend.
  I thank my friend from Mississippi for a very important amendment 
that will take advantage of the new technology we have, as far as 
increasing full disclosure and informing the American people.
  Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield, I want to underscore what the 
Senator from Arizona has said. We have considered, I think, eight 
amendments since we began on Tuesday. Now, we have taken a lot of time. 
Some of them have been lengthy debates. The amendment we are about to 
consider will be finished in about a half hour. It is a 
noncontroversial amendment, one that will add substantially to the 
bill. But we have about 30, at least, amendments on the Democratic 
side. While many amendments probably will not be offered, I don't know 
that yet.
  I underscore what the Senator said, that we need to take advantage of 
this opportunity. Several Members have said, ``I will do it next 
week.'' That crowd is beginning to grow for next week. If we only 
handle 8 or 10 amendments this week, I am not overly optimistic that we 
will be able to handle the numbers I see in 4 or 5 days next week. It 
will be important to pare the list down. I urge Members to do so.
  With that, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for yielding. I 
support his amendment. There are several people who want to speak on 
it. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana would like to be heard as well on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 137

             (Purpose: To provide for increased disclosure)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 137:
       On page 38, after line 3, add the following:

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. INTERNET ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed with the Commission 
     under this Act available for inspection by the public in the 
     offices of the Commission and accessible to the public on the 
     Internet not later than 48 hours (24 hours in the case of a 
     designation, statement, report, or notification filed 
     electronically) after receipt by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 502. MAINTENANCE OF WEBSITE OF ELECTION REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     maintain a central site on the Internet to make accessible to 
     the public all election-related reports.
       (b) Election-Related Report.--In this section, the term 
     ``election-related report'' means any report, designation, or 
     statement required to be filed under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971.
       (c) Coordination With Other Agencies.--Any executive agency 
     receiving an election-related report shall cooperate and 
     coordinate with the Federal Election Commission to make such 
     report available for posting on the site of the Federal 
     Election Commission in a timely manner.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I allowed the clerk to read the entire 
amendment so the Senate would be fully informed of the exact provisions 
of this amendment.
  It does, purely and simply, what it says it does. It requires the 
filing of the posting by the Federal Election Commission of any filing 
made with the Commission on the Internet. In the case of filings made 
electronically, the posting will be done under the terms of this 
amendment within 24 hours. As far as other filings are concerned, those 
that may be filed without electronic dissemination through the 
Commission, or receipt in any other way, shall be posted within 48 
hours.
  We have discussed the amendment and the question of enforceability 
and

[[Page S2687]]

compliance with the Federal Election Commission representatives. We 
have been assured that this can be managed, it can be administered by 
the Federal Election Commission.
  It is also important to note there are a number of reports required 
under this act we are taking up now, an amendment to the 1971 act that 
would require filings by other than candidates for Federal office. At 
this time, most of the filings that are done are for candidates. I am 
hopeful that under the terms of this act we are considering now, the 
amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, we will have much more 
disclosure. I think, for example, the amendment we have already 
adopted, offered by the distinguished Senators from Maine and Vermont, 
Ms. Snowe and Mr. Jeffords, will require more disclosure to be made 
about who is spending money to influence the outcome of Federal 
elections, and how that money is being spent.
  These disclosures will be made under the McCain-Feingold bill. They 
will be subject to the posting provisions of this amendment.
  It is my hope, too, that other Federal agencies which may receive 
election-related reports, as defined in section 502 of this amendment, 
will cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and make those 
reports available to the Federal Election Commission so it may post on 
a central Internet Web site all election-related reports relating to 
Federal election campaigns.
  This will make it a lot simpler and easier for the general public. It 
will make it easier for candidates, anybody interested in Federal 
election campaigns, to go to one site and find there, through links 
maybe to other agencies or otherwise on this Internet site, all of the 
receipts, disbursements, and disclosures required by the Federal 
Election Campaign Act.
  We hope this is a step toward fuller disclosure, disclosure that 
really does create greater access by the public to what is going on in 
Federal election campaigns. I am hopeful the Senate will agree to the 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am looking at section 502 of the 
Senator's amendment, subsection (B), in how he defines all election-
related reports. I know the Senator's intent, and I applaud it. I think 
it would be absolutely desirable to have a central point, a repository 
totally transparent to the public.
  The Senator's amendment says that all election-related reports are 
those required ``to be filed under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971.''

  I am wondering if the Senator's intent is to require the reports of 
section 527 groups whose reports are already posted on the Internet 
separately. Those are a requirement of the IRS Code.
  Also, does it require the FEC to put on the Internet what we call LM-
2 forms filed with the Department of Labor, since all of these forms 
acknowledge labor PACs? In my mind, they fall under the all election-
related reports. It just so happens there are others outside the 1971 
law.
  There is another, and this is one I find interesting. It is related 
to municipal securities dealers pursuant to what is known as the MSRB 
rule G-37, which I know absolutely nothing about, other than to say 
there is a requirement for filing under that law because Federal 
candidates sometimes can have bond-related responsibilities.
  George W. Bush, as Governor of Texas, had bond-related 
responsibilities and probably had to do filings. Those are election-
related filings, but because they are not under the 1971 law, they 
would not necessarily fall under the Senator's definition.
  I know the intent of the Senator from Mississippi, and I applaud his 
intent. The question is, Is it as all inclusive as he intends it to be 
because the Senator has limited it to the 1971 law, and there are now 
other laws we have grown through over the last good number of years 
that indicate other election-related activities?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question and 
also for his comments to further explain the possible inclusiveness of 
paragraph (c) of section 502. This is not an absolute requirement of 
law under paragraph (c). It is an encouragement. It is almost like a 
sense-of-Congress resolution when we encourage the cooperation and 
coordination with the Federal Election Commission. We use the word 
``shall.''
  I do not know that in a contest in litigation this would be enforced 
by the courts, but we hope the spirit of it is conveyed by the use of 
the words ``cooperate and coordinate with'' the Federal Election 
Commission.
  I do not want to create within the Federal Election Commission the 
idea that they are superimposed over all other Federal agencies and 
departments and can summons them or require of them transferring 
information and documents to the FEC for exhibition on this Internet 
site, but it is our hope that this language will encourage the 
cooperation and coordination of these other Federal agencies that might 
receive reports, such as the ones described by the Senator from Idaho, 
so the FEC can put all of these in one central location on a Web site. 
They can do this through linking to other agencies and departments on 
the Internet.
  As the Senator knows, that is one way to deal with this, on the 
centralized Web site of the FEC to provide opportunities and cross-
references to other agencies and identify documents that are election-
related reports. That is our hope.
  The wording of it might be a little awkward. I am happy for the 
Senator to suggest a better way to say it, but that is the intent.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for one last question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, FEC reports are only filed with the FEC and 
the Secretary of the Senate. They are filed nowhere else in our 
Government. In subsection (c), the Senator talks about coordinating 
with other agencies:

       Any executive agency receiving an election-related report 
     shall cooperate and coordinate with the Federal Election 
     Commission. . . .

  I sense a confusion there in how that gets supplied. You file with no 
one else but the FEC as a Federal candidate. The FEC files with no one 
else, and there is no relationship to these filings now of the kind I 
have mentioned--the bond brokerage issue with the broker having to file 
and the IRS-related issue. Those are all stand-alones, if you will, and 
also the Internet LM-2 form filed with the Department of Labor.
  I want to agree with the Senator in creating a central repository.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield to me and let me ask for his 
reaction to this, can we put in the first section ``included, but not 
limited to, election-related reports''? Paragraph (b) means any report, 
designation, or statement required to be filed with the Commission--
included but not limited to. Let's put that in between ``election-
related report'' and the word ``means.''
  Mr. CRAIG. We are all concerned about clarity, and I was concerned--
--
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would not want to limit it just to the Federal 
Election Campaign Act, but I did not want anybody to think we were 
giving the FEC the authority to require other agencies to file their 
reports with the FEC. We wanted to use ``cooperate and coordinate.''
  Mr. CRAIG. But, of course, if the Senator is intent on creating a 
central repository with true transparency and these are other valuable 
reports--for example, the report filed with the Labor Department is 
labor unions and PACs and their filings which have valuable disclosure 
information in them.
  I am not sure we want to be that vague. That is my frustration.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I also do not want to presume to list every report that 
is an election-related report, hence the use of a general description 
of what we are talking about. We do want to include any and all reports 
that are required to be filed under the Federal Election Campaign Act 
of 1971 and the amendments to that.
  We think the amendments are included in the words ``Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971,'' including the amendments of 1974 and the one we 
are considering in the Senate today, which is an amendment to the 1971 
act. We want to include all filings required by that law and all 
amendments to that law. That is understood.

[[Page S2688]]

  We also want to include, by way of suggesting cooperation and 
coordination with other Federal agencies and departments, any other 
election-related reports, and the Senator has correctly identified 
several. Those all should be included, in my view, in the meaning and 
the intent of this amendment and should be so construed by any court of 
law or any administrative agency with responsibility for enforcing this 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. To our knowledge, there are only the three we have 
mentioned. Absolute clarity suggests you put those three in the text of 
your amendment and then say ``and any additional'' or others that may 
come along.
  Obviously, if your amendment becomes the law and other reports are 
required that might be outside the scope of the 1971 law, you would 
identify them with your law and make them a requirement of that filing 
for purposes of Internet access.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator. I think his suggestions have been 
helpful.
  We have staff on the floor who have been working on the drafting of 
the amendment for several days and consulting with the FEC and 
representatives of the committee of jurisdiction.
  Let me have a chance to address the concerns of the Senator with some 
suggested modification language and discuss this with him and the 
chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over this subject.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy for the Senator to be recognized in her own 
right and speak to the issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support Senator 
Cochran in his amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment and goes 
a long way toward moving to a more full and complete disclosure.
  I understand some of the questions that have been raised. But as I 
read this amendment, it is very good. We are doing this in Louisiana 
and perhaps other States, learning how to use this new technology in 
many good ways.
  It helps our campaign finance system be more transparent. For 
instance, the Senator is correct; you can take a State such as 
Louisiana and simply make this requirement for our State agency to make 
all of these reports available over the Internet on one Web site so 
people don't have to search through a variety of Web sites.
  I commend the Senator for his amendment. I support his amendment and 
urge the Senator, unless absolutely necessary, not to adjust the 
amendment. It is very clear. It simply takes the law and all the 
reports and urges the FEC to put them in one central site. It will make 
it easier for our constituents, easier for the news media, easier for 
us to follow those reports.
  I will have an amendment later taking this a step further and 
requiring the FEC to develop standardized software which will make it 
much easier for everyone to file the required reports in a timely 
fashion. My amendment will take this a step further by requiring it to 
be almost instantaneously reported. Deposit a check in your bank 
account, and it will appear on the Internet. People can follow the flow 
of money.

  There are many disagreements about limits and whether there should be 
caps or no caps, and should broadcasters have to give special rates or 
reasonable rates--since I voted for that amendment, ``reasonable 
rates''--for political candidates.
  Frankly, in my general discussions with Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold and many people on both sides who support campaign finance 
reform, the one area on which we all agree is more disclosure. The one 
thing everybody says, opponents of McCain-Feingold as well as 
proponents, is that we should be coming forward more aggressively in 
our disclosure.
  That is what the amendment of Senator Cochran does. I compliment him 
for that. I urge my colleagues to look favorably upon it. I thank him 
for the work he is doing in regard to campaign finance reform. I hope 
we don't change this amendment too much. It is quite simple and very 
good in its current form.
  Later on today, I will propose my amendment that will make it a 
virtual reality check on all campaign contributions coming in from a 
variety of different sources and make it much easier for Members to be 
held accountable for moneys we are collecting and the votes we cast. 
The Cochran amendment is very good, and I hope we will adopt it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my colleague proceed 
as in morning business so the time will not come off consideration of 
the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I request I be permitted to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask the distinguished Senator how much time he wishes 
to speak because we are working on an amendment we hope can be adopted 
pretty soon.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for approximately 5 
minutes.

                          ____________________